Blob Mckenzie wrote:Do not want Barker at all.........I heard Gillman or Eye Bags wanted a PMD.....umm hello... your top 6 are ALL PMD.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Barker is big, mobile and he was a # 3 overall pick. Who knows maybe he makes Keith Ballard expendable ??

I would have preferred Jim Vandermeer myself but obviously Mike Gillis doesn't agree. Either way this team needed some experience on the back end and I don't see a ton of guys out there. he can shoot the puck and he did put up 40 points with the Hawks three years ago. He has had a lot of injuries lately and when he is eating up 1 % of the cap I think it's a pretty low risk move.

Huh? One minute, you don't want Barker at all and now that Gillis signed him you're justifying the signing? C'mon. Quit the cheerleading. Pick an opinion and stick to it

What has been his bread and butter historically has been his break out and first pass. Where he has had success has been when he does the simple things like off the glass to forwards on the fly, chip outs and identifying the open man. He has really struggled in the offensive zone lately, possibly under the expectations of a big money contract.

I wouldn't expect 40 points again but if he can just be a decent depth player we aren't losing much.

Honestly, for the money paid out and the term it's a low-risk move. Gillis has the budget (regardless of cap space) to make moves like this so either Barker cuts the mustard and becomes a 6-8 Dman on the squad or he goes to Chicago and markets himself for another contract with the Canucks or elsewhere.

Evidently Gillis is not going to put all his chips on Corrado and Connaughton to make the jump and provide depth. If they wow AV and Co. more than Barker, to Chicago he goes but his contract doesn't hurt the organization much.

Kinda concerned about the circumstances of him getting cut from the Texas Stars, but I trust the organization has done some homework on Barker to warrant the signing. Hard to see how the Canucks lose by signing a 700k dman who they can shuttle to the Wolves if he doesn't pan out in training camp. The only risk I see is if he's a cancer in the room. No point having that either in Vancouver or Chicago.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Do not want Barker at all.........I heard Gillman or Eye Bags wanted a PMD.....umm hello... your top 6 are ALL PMD.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Barker is big, mobile and he was a # 3 overall pick. Who knows maybe he makes Keith Ballard expendable ??

I would have preferred Jim Vandermeer myself but obviously Mike Gillis doesn't agree. Either way this team needed some experience on the back end and I don't see a ton of guys out there. he can shoot the puck and he did put up 40 points with the Hawks three years ago. He has had a lot of injuries lately and when he is eating up 1 % of the cap I think it's a pretty low risk move.

Huh? One minute, you don't want Barker at all and now that Gillis signed him you're justifying the signing? C'mon. Quit the cheerleading. Pick an opinion and stick to it

I'm no cheerleader that's for sure. I did flip flop on Barker absolutely. I am still not a huge fan but he does have experience and he was a high draft pick. I would RATHER have the tougher player in Vandermeer which is what I said. Either way as an #8 or #9 guy making peanut crumbs I don't see where it is a horrible signing. I guess one could say I changed my mind.....sorry for that. Having researched all the injuries he has suffered has softened my stance a little. Originally I was a bit pissed because this team needs to get tougher and I am not seeing that.

"Cheerleading" .... at least I don't piss and ball all fucking day like the dude and Dogsemen do. For the record I have taken Gillis and co to task for some of their shortcomings , but I also don't carve them on every fucking mistake and ignore the good things the management does.

You know hockey is back when people are pissed off over a depth signing.

Barker will make 700K pro-rated and with the new rules the Canucks can send him to Chicago without it counting against the cap.

If you expect Barker to play in the top 4, yeah then this is a horrible signing, but if you're looking for a depth guy with some experience, PP ability and undeveloped potential then this a low risk signing.

Last year I mentioned Barker as someone the Canucks should bring in on a cheap deal but the Oilers decided to give him a $2.5M contract...and people wonder why the Oilers have sucked. Barker may be beyond repair, but he's struck me as a guy who needed a strong D partner, structure and lowered expectations. My argument was that he should have signed in Van for cheap in an effort to bring his game on track and find a sort of a niche that can extend his career as a useful player. But instead he took the guaranteed big money on a 1 year deal and set himself back even more.

Regardless, at worst he plays a couple terrible games and is likely never seen again. If by chance he can find some sort of a useful depth role, then it's a solid, cheap signing.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Either way as an #8 or #9 guy making peanut crumbs I don't see where it is a horrible signing.

According to some, apparently it's a lot of peanut crumbs.

Anybody figure Gillis and Co. had people at the UBC arena to see how he fared with the rest of the Canucks while the lockout was going on? Nothing against it, as far as I know. Just wondering if they've seen something in him that the rest of us haven't.

Vader wrote:Huh? One minute, you don't want Barker at all and now that Gillis signed him you're justifying the signing? C'mon. Quit the cheerleading. Pick an opinion and stick to it

Vader, welcome to the Gillis Cheerleader Club. Get used to it. You will no longer be allowed to have a negative opinion of Barker until he is no longer a Canuck. Apparently everything Gillis touches turns to gold.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

I don't know dude...cheering for a winner on the ice always seems to be better than a winner on June 24th. I think you need to snap open a cold one and enjoy the times when the team actually contends rather than hoping for countless high picks and better draft choices. The dark days will be back soon enough...then you can enjoy prospects and hope for the future. For me, the future is now.

Vader wrote:Huh? One minute, you don't want Barker at all and now that Gillis signed him you're justifying the signing? C'mon. Quit the cheerleading. Pick an opinion and stick to it

Vader, welcome to the Gillis Cheerleader Club. Get used to it. You will no longer be allowed to have a negative opinion of Barker until he is no longer a Canuck. Apparently everything Gillis touches turns to gold.

Careful Vades, he's trying to recruit you for the Oiler Cheerleader Club.

coco_canuck wrote:You know hockey is back when people are pissed off over a depth signing.

You know, everybody calls them "depth signings" as though the team bus will need to crash before they play. Your #7 guy needs to be decent

I find it funny people will justify any move Gillis makes yet I think one of Gillis' best moves was the subject of ridicule on boards like this- that being finding Aaron Rome. Rome was an extremely solid depth player. I don't think Barker will give them anywhere near the stability that Rome provided.

Last edited by Vader on Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.